US/Canada Trade War ?

[blutoski]

Trickle Down Magic? Libertarian catechism? Voodoo Economics? 'Cuz Milton Friedman says so?

And Milton Friedman in particular said the opposite: he was a strong advocate for free trade.

He cited Hayek, and argued that tariffs were part of what paves '[the road to serfdom]'.

 

[blutoski]

See why those 4 mills shouldn't be controlling the market?


Can't sell houses? A bit dramatic even for you?

Guess what happens if the houses don't sell from this tiny increase in lumber? Magically the price goes down. Guess why it goes down?

Ah. Literal Magical Thinking. I'm not sure I can offer you anything that will change your mind, then. I don't have any magical solutions, just real ones.

 

[logger]

Trickle Down Magic? Libertarian catechism? Voodoo Economics? 'Cuz Milton Friedman says so?

Much more simple. The price goes down because they can't sell it, Shazam!

 

[logger]

I'm not clear on which industry he's concerned about keeping strong. If it's the logging industry and he's really interested in keeping it strong as opposed to engaging in this whole charade to appear "strong" then he's going about it an interesting way.

If he were to impose tariffs then he is baking in the inefficiencies which meant that the US lumber industry apparently couldn't compete domestically, much less internationally. Over time those inefficiencies will become even further ingrained so, like the US motor industry in the 1970s, it'll become "institutionalised" in its own domestic market, leaving it exposed to better and more efficient entrants from overseas.

This "support" for the logging industry is of course coming at a significant cost to other industries like construction, realty and finance which contribute far more to U.S. GDP than the logging industry - not to mention the US consumer who will have bear the passed on costs.

Trump isn't just robbing Peter in a misguided attempt to pay Paul, he's robbing Peter, Mandy, Eric, Diane and Bill to try to pay Paul.

China's slave labor market is a great example for you. But price uptick does actually help the markets you've mentioned. Same principle as the oil market needing an uptick.

Evidence for the first part ?

No I'm not giving you evidence, I'm not wasting my valuable time to educate you. Trees are dying to get on the ground today!

A man with absolutely no experience whatsoever of conducting trade negotiations between sovereign nation and pretty dubious business credentials all around.

Which is why he and every other president surrounds himself with people that do. You really don't understand that do you?

I query whether he has indeed been tested, but more pertinently, whether he comprehensively and repeatedly flunked those tests.

Let us know when you make your first billion. I know many leftist like to put themselves on par with him, but truthfully they wouldn't make a pimple on his ass.

 

[logger]

Ah. Literal Magical Thinking. I'm not sure I can offer you anything that will change your mind, then. I don't have any magical solutions, just real ones.

You disagree with the lowering of prices when products don't sell?

 

[blutoski]

You disagree with the lowering of prices when products don't sell?

I disagree that it's assured. Economies of scale impact pricing, too. So: lower volumes of sales can lead to increased costs, rather than reduced costs.

It depends on whether we're talking about existing versus new inventory. In the situation of increased supplier costs, the builders may forecast lower sales, and build fewer units. This will increase the per-unit cost. Alternatively, the plan could be to retain the end price, but pad it with more margin by, for example, making the units smaller, or with fewer amenities.

The point is that the end buyer gets less value, which is one way the increased costs of inputs can manifest. All costs are passed on to the final consumer in some form.

 

[blutoski]

I disagree that it's assured. Economies of scale impact pricing, too. So: lower volumes of sales can lead to increased costs, rather than reduced costs.

It depends on whether we're talking about existing versus new inventory. In the situation of increased supplier costs, the builders may forecast lower sales, and build fewer units. This will increase the per-unit cost. Alternatively, the plan could be to retain the end price, but pad it with more margin by, for example, making the units smaller, or with fewer amenities.

The point is that the end buyer gets less value, which is one way the increased costs of inputs can manifest. All costs are passed on to the final consumer in some form.

ETA: alternatively, the real estate developer could genuinely absorb the cost increases by maintaining their original pricepoints without reducing value... not sure why they'd choose to do that, but assuming it happens, this is another example of taking from Peter to pay Paul. Somebody's out of pocket, in this scenario the construction company. Which is why the construction companies are voicing their concerns. One industry is being asked to take a hit for another.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Wait, so our biggest conservative free market proponent is protectionist on one issue: logging. Wow, our logger is literally a logger. For some reason I never would have guessed that. Carry on without me.

 

[blutoski]

Wait, so our biggest conservative free market proponent is protectionist on one issue: logging. Wow, our logger is literally a logger. For some reason I never would have guessed that. Carry on without me.

In logger's defense, i suspect he would support protectionism in any industry where the other country was dumping, as would I.

The disagreement in my view, is that Canadian softwood is not being dumped. The pricing is lower because BC has more good quality inventory, and economies of scale for production that reduce the unit cost. If there was evidence of dumping, I would support a punitive tariff too.

 

[Dr. Keith]

In logger's defense, i suspect he would support protectionism in any industry where the other country was dumping, as would I.

The disagreement in my view, is that Canadian softwood is not being dumped. The pricing is lower because BC has more good quality inventory, and economies of scale for production that reduce the unit cost. If there was evidence of dumping, I would support a punitive tariff too.

I guess it appears that the glasses required to see dumping in this case are peculiar to one who works in the industry.

 

[blutoski]

I guess it appears that the glasses required to see dumping in this case are peculiar to one who works in the industry.

It's just incomplete information. It's true that stumpage fees are lower in BC. Meanwhile, other costs are higher. Specifically: the leasing conditions obligate the logging companies to maintain the hectares with conservation, public access, public safety, fire management, &c that add costs the American companies don't see. Overall, it's probably a bit more expensive to extract in Canada vs US.

This has been the routine findings when the complaint gets reviewed by the NAFTA boards: if the lower stumpage fees are a 'subsidy' then so are the WA and OR lowered land management obligations. Basically, neither are an actual subsidy, and the dispute dies until some politician revives it as part of his/her political theater du jour.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is this thing called the WTO (which is largely US controlled, anyways) that is the proper institution to determine if there is price dumping or not.
Trump or logger aren't in a position to tell if Canada is or not.

 

[Stacko]

There is this thing called the WTO (which is largely US controlled, anyways) that is the proper institution to determine if there is price dumping or not.
Trump or logger aren't in a position to tell if Canada is or not.

The WTO already ruled against the US on this issue.

 

[blutoski]

The WTO already ruled against the US on this issue.

Repeatedly.

But hope springs eternal, and it's always possible conditions changed and deserve a fresh review.

Also worth noting: the sort of person who thinks there's an international conspiracy to screw US workers probably assumes the WTO is in on it, so repeated exoneration probably doesn't carry weight, and may even be further confirmation of evil doings.

 

[logger]

I disagree that it's assured. Economies of scale impact pricing, too. So: lower volumes of sales can lead to increased costs, rather than reduced costs.

That would be great, but it's not going to happen with lumber.

It depends on whether we're talking about existing versus new inventory. In the situation of increased supplier costs, the builders may forecast lower sales, and build fewer units. This will increase the per-unit cost. Alternatively, the plan could be to retain the end price, but pad it with more margin by, for example, making the units smaller, or with fewer amenities.

Lol, ok. I suppose this is you working on the "not assured" angle?

All costs are passed on to the final consumer in some form.

This is what is not assured. Especially from the builders end.

 

[logger]

ETA: alternatively, the real estate developer could genuinely absorb the cost increases by maintaining their original pricepoints without reducing value... not sure why they'd choose to do that, but assuming it happens, this is another example of taking from Peter to pay Paul. Somebody's out of pocket, in this scenario the construction company. Which is why the construction companies are voicing their concerns. One industry is being asked to take a hit for another.

Ah here we go, yes the developer and builder can take the hit, or just pass it on. Besides construction companies always bitch and moan. Every clearing job I've ever done for a builder has been negotiated down to the dollar.

 

[logger]

Wait, so our biggest conservative free market proponent is protectionist on one issue: logging. Wow, our logger is literally a logger. For some reason I never would have guessed that. Carry on without me.

Let me bring you up to speed. I'm for government saving our industries. Our standard of living is quite higher than the slave labor in China. Strangely I know the leftists here are black and white on everything, a clear contrast from your usual gray area leftist.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Much more simple. The price goes down because they can't sell it, Shazam!

You learned this in your How to Get Rich During the Coming Crisis seminars? Get your $39.95 worth? They refer to this in the housing/flipping business as "a motivated seller". Everyone knows that means "desperate to move it, even at a loss".

So you're in favor of squeezing profits or forcing losses out of the realtors and builders just as long as your vast softwood holdings make more money? As they've often said, "What's good for the timber trades is good for the USA!", right? We all have to buckle down and tighten our belts so you can get that flat screen you wanted for the rec room?

Wasn't there a song about this? Something about a handful of gimme and a mouthful of much obliged....

 

[logger]

You learned this in your How to Get Rich During the Coming Crisis seminars? Get your $39.95 worth? They refer to this in the housing/flipping business as "a motivated seller". Everyone knows that means "desperate to move it, even at a loss".

Sell it at a loss? Lol
So now real estate will be sold at a loss because of this small increase in lumber. Where did you take this 39.95 course? Did it include barista training?

So you're in favor of squeezing profits or forcing losses out of the realtors and builders just as long as your vast softwood holdings make more money? As they've often said, "What's good for the timber trades is good for the USA!", right? We all have to buckle down and tighten our belts so you can get that flat screen you wanted for the rec room?

Oh yeah, with all the money builders owe me! And realtors, if I get one more call from them, I'm going to ask my buddy Trump to up the tariff. And I don't have vast softwood holdings, no money in that. Now Hardwood holdings, that is easy money.

Wasn't there a song about this? Something about a handful of gimme and a mouthful of much obliged....

Not sure, I'm not as old as you are.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sell it at a loss? Lol
So now real estate will be sold at a loss because of this small increase in lumber. Where did you take this 39.95 course? Did it include barista training?

Oh yeah, with all the money builders owe me! And realtors, if I get one more call from them, I'm going to ask my buddy Trump to up the tariff. And I don't have vast softwood holdings, no money in that. Now Hardwood holdings, that is easy money.

Not sure, I'm not as old as you are.

The point is that the houses won't be sold at a loss because those specific houses won't be built. No one's going to be building lower-middle income housing if the costs take that segment of the population (the little guys who you and the orange fungus claim to be supporting) out of the market. The builders' associations have estimated 150,000 such.

But that's okay because Weyerhauser and Georgia Pacific get the protectionism they asked for, foisted on a gullible public wrapping themselves in the flag and their share prices and dividends will be just fine. And that's what matters, right?

How are the employment figures for April in the forestry sector? Let's see how much (absent seasonal adjustment) they go up when the May figures come in. Gonna create a lot of jobs, this is.